| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment | |
| Posted by: | Yola Dragon | |
| Date/Time: | 15/03/10 18:04:00 |
| The Inspector did, it would appear, consider the 2003 report as she says in paragraph 14 of her report: "I have noted, for example, that a 2003 risk assessment of moorings in a similar position gave ratings of greater than 12 in three out of seven scenarios. The level of risk identified at that time was not, therefore, as low as reasonably practical." She must also have considered the submissions of the various objectors but she nonetheless came to the conclusion that the risk of the Hither Green proposal was acceptable. The question is how applicable the 2003 report was to the Hither Green scheme. The Google image shows that the barges moored at that time projected further into the river than the Hither Green scheme with two abreast right at the mouth of the river. I do not know what the 4 mooring schemes Capon considered were or whether they projected more or less than the Hither Green scheme. Capon does not seem to have been the most consistent of experts and this must colour any judgement of his opinions. I understand your criticism of the PLA and I certainly agree that their charges for moorings, and particularly the recent increases, are indefensible. Having said that I have in the past had dealings with some of their harbourmasters and I have found each of them to be honest and professional in their work. I certainly do not believe that any PLA harbourmaster would give his consent to works that he thought were a hazard in order to benefit the PLA's finances. If he did so it could all too easily end his career. |